Stephanie Krug

This ruling addresses whether a criminal trial continuation for aggravated assault and other charges should proceed remotely by videoconference, given that both Crown counsel and the presiding judge were unable to attend in person due to personal reasons.

The accused opposed remote proceedings, arguing it would impact trial fairness and credibility assessment.

The court held that while the accused must be physically present for evidentiary portions of the trial unless he consents to remote appearance, Crown counsel, the judge, and witnesses (including the complainant and an expert) could appear remotely.

The decision balanced the accused's right to a fair trial and the open court principle with public health concerns during the pandemic and the need for efficient court functioning, concluding that remote testimony could enhance credibility assessment by allowing unmasked, close-up views of witnesses.

The accused was charged with robbery, break and enter with intent to commit robbery, and breach of probation following a home invasion robbery.

The Crown's case depended heavily on evidence obtained from the accused's Blackberry Playbook tablet.

The defence brought a Charter application challenging the lawfulness of the search and seizure of the tablet and the admissibility of evidence derived therefrom.

The court found multiple Charter breaches: an unlawful warrantless search of the tablet incident to arrest, a violation of the right to counsel when the accused was questioned about the robbery without being re-advised of his rights, and deliberate omissions and misleading statements in the Information to Obtain a search warrant.

The court excluded the evidence obtained from the tablet searches, finding that admission would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.